·

The new system, U multiranking, that is suggested is subjective. Some of the stakeholders praise this fact, others see limitations.

·

Very good that each stakeholder target group can choose their own priorities and their own point of reference.

·

This system makes it possible to make a personal ranking depending on the individual selection. Most stakeholders value this fact very high.

·

Good that the instrument is demand driven instead of supply driven.

·

Good that there is a possibility to take into account national differences.

·

Very important that the competiveness stays between institutions.

·

Students want the best institution possible and need one overview. Is not possible when the dimensions are used.

·

Target groups are not defined! This is a big strength everybody, every individual can be target group. For now examples are used!

·

Some institutions will always be less good than others this can not be avoided.

·

The ‘traffic light’ system has the same limitations as other ranking when comparing the red, green and yellow outcomes. How to avoid this? Quartiles are being used.

·

The three catagories (red, green and yellow) are not fixed yet.

·

only formal education is taken into account also but activities of students outside the formal education could be a possible indicator. Such as international exchange.

·

There is a need for comparable indicators.

o

Need to discuss how to include research institutions that are not educational institutions.

o

Need to identify indicators:

o

For research some could be the same as being used in current ranking systems

o

Need indicators that are countable otherwise it is impossible to see the difference between the institutions.

o

When defining indicators include the institutions. They have to give the input, the data and have to work with the indicators.

o

It is not possible to include all the institutions off the world but make an representative group. So avoid identifying them all by yourself.

o

When defining the indicators there need to be a strong theoretical backbone. There need to be a weight between the indicators. Nobody has an solution to this yet.

·

When defining the indicators experts are used to give information about the use of different types of databases.

·

Need for an operational system on how to gather the data from the institutions and how to use it. There are ideas such as:

o

a pre filled questionnaire sent to all institutions

o

use national information systems and combine the information.

o

Institutions have an own responsibility to update the data through a website

·

More work and thought needs to be done concerning the suggested webtool. More ideas and information is requested.

·

Updating the data every year is not feasible. Need to find an interim e.g. every 2 years, 5 years.

·

Some are critical against the use of U-map this is European centered and the new U-multiranking should be applicable globally. In the United states a similar system like U-Map is being developed. Combine these systems and test this with the sample group of institutions. Everybody agrees this is still a challenge.

·

U-Map shows diversity in student population need to put this also in the U-Multiranking.

·

Problem with media could be that they will still add up alle the outcomes and make a league chart.

·

Inform media as soon as possible

·

Avoid that others will say “ European higher education institutions are not doing well within the existing rankings so they come up with their own”

·

Involve media to get broader support.

·

The pilots that are chosen under the field rankings are not unanimously approved and calls for a lot of (further) discussion. But they are accepted as pilots because a test of the methodology is needed. There is always room for discussion. The change that is made is: teaching institutions into: :innovation institutions.

·

Not forget that field are getting more and more interdisciplinary. Also need to be included in the new system. Still a question how? Are national examples that can be used.

·

Suggestion: instead of using just two, business and engineering take a co pilot to compare.